(August 19, 2016 at 7:19 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:He is about to tell you that you can't reasonably be confident that the scientists actually did any of that research at all, since we didn't watch them do it ourselves, so it's faith. Despite the fact that...ya know...we live in the world and witness the fruits of their labor on a daily basis. Unreal.(August 19, 2016 at 6:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Wrong, science is based upon experimental observations that are replicable. It doesn;t matter whether or not someone else saw it, if no one else sees it when they do the same thing. In fact, it doesn't matter that almost everyone sees it...if a single person doesn't. That's the -entire- point of peer review and replication.
You're welcome.
Moreover the observations tend to be incredibly detailed, usually after rigorous number crunching and double-checking even before anything is published for further scrutiny. It is nothing like a layperson observing an event and attempting to remember it later. And any attempts to equivocate the two stem from either gross ignorance or pure intellectual dishonesty.
That it's even a point of contention is ridiculous, and only highlights that certain people have no idea what they're talking about or trying to argue. Try again.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
